From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: RFC: Still TODO for 4.2? xl domain numa memory allocation vs xm/xend Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:58:43 +0100 Message-ID: <1327078723.2337.56.camel@Abyss> References: <1325694562.25206.304.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20120119211430.GT12984@reaktio.net> <1327046368.21391.29.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk> <1327058562.17599.134.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1327059874.2337.38.camel@Abyss> <1327060480.30054.15.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1327061083.2337.42.camel@Abyss> <1327062788.30054.31.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1327065091.30054.43.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1327071976.30054.55.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1327075340.2337.50.camel@Abyss> <1327076495.30054.63.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0300536030400594491==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1327076495.30054.63.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel , "Keir (Xen.org)" , Stefano Stabellini , George Dunlap , "Tim (Xen.org)" , Ian Jackson , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============0300536030400594491== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Kid6RToKsq+SSlPA8iwJ" --=-Kid6RToKsq+SSlPA8iwJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 16:21 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:=20 > I think I made the rather basic c*ckup of using a domain configured with > more memory than is in any single node. >=20 Well, that is one of the most interesting use cases, indeed! :-) Seriously, I really expect to have some very hard time when I'll come to consider scenarios like that one... > With your affinity patches and the domain restricted to a single node > via cpu affinity The Right Thing seems to happen. >=20 > cpupools don't seem to do this, I don't know if that is expected or not. >=20 Glad to know my patches are (well, could be!) useful for something! About cpupool, I think if a domain is created as part of the pool, the very same behaviour you achieve with my patches should be expected. However, as George is correctly pointing out, that might turn out to be quite bad if the domain is then moved! :-( Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) PhD Candidate, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy) --=-Kid6RToKsq+SSlPA8iwJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk8ZnUMACgkQk4XaBE3IOsRbAQCfVYj9vaZ1GQ8/emMg2ygi1SdE HQEAn0RvXBvtiIbnWOwUWluwpk00KBia =z86g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Kid6RToKsq+SSlPA8iwJ-- --===============0300536030400594491== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --===============0300536030400594491==--